|When an essay uses phrases like the ones below, at what point do we shift from thinking the student may be trying to fill up space, or maybe has imperfect control of his rhetoric, to thinking he's an outright anti-S*mite? [sorry for all the asterisks; trying to engage in a little Google-proofing]|
"It is Sh*l*ck, a character that is shown to be greedy, angry, and a J*w..."Who are these people I'm teaching this term?
"...and Sh*l*ck gets what he deserves because he is a J*w."
"This is a greedy characteristic, and it is equaled by all the other characters that the greed goes with his J*wdom, and that as such, Sh*l*ck is an all around bad person."
"The fact that it is Sh*l*ck, the evil, greedy, non-Christian...."
"just because he is a J*w..."
"Even this reasoning adds to the view that as a J*w, Sh*l*ck is a bad person."
Sh*l*ck "refuses to be merciful" even rejecting "a generous offer by the generous Christians."
"It is only the J*w who is uncompromising..."
"The vengeful, bitter J*w is defeated..."
"Sh*l*ck is Sh*l*ck, just the greedy money-lending J*w."
"...it is Shyl*ck who is scheming for revenge."
"the greedy J*w lives in an evil shadow"
"Sh*l*ck's thirst for vengeance and his J*wishness are one and the same, and so eliminating the J*wish aspect will make him a less angry member of society...."